Carbon is the element of life, the chemical core of all known life-forms. It is the fourth most abundant element in the universe, and the second in the human body, after oxygen. It is the unique and, indeed, astonishing properties of carbon that make life possible. With four electrons available for covalent bonding, carbon forms an unimaginable diversity of complex organic compounds, with more than ten million described to date; and yet that figure is only a tiny fraction of the number theoretically possible. It has an unusual ability to form polymers — macromolecules with repeating sequences, such as DNA — at temperatures experienced on earth. Its physical properties vary widely in allotropic forms as distinct as graphene and diamond: soft and hard; opaque and transparent; conductive and insulating. Carbon will not ionise under any except implausibly extreme conditions, and its allotropes are thermally conductive, thermodynamically stable and chemically resistant. Taken together, these properties make carbon not just the foundation but the architect of the entire, rich, complex and beautiful biosphere of this planet.
Like all heavy elements, carbon is forged in the furnaces of stars. But when the British scientist Fred Hoyle came to this element in his ground-breaking work on stellar nucleosynthesis, he found himself faced with a conundrum: carbon should not exist. That is, it should be transformed instantaneously into oxygen on coming into existence. After deep and exhaustive analysis he discovered there just might be a solution to the riddle of the persistence of carbon, but only if a very specific value was assigned to the parameters of the carbon-12 isotope: i.e., a resonance level at 7.65 MeV (million electric volts) above its ground state.
He managed to persuade an expert colleague to drop what he was doing and run the necessary experiments. The exact value Hoyle had predicted was confirmed; and the result led him to a mind-blowing epiphany.
“I do not believe,” he wrote, “that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars.”
Carbon is the impossible element, and the miracle of life begins with physics.
Hoyle is one of a number of 20th century physicists who started to advance the teleological argument — that physical parameters governing the condition of the universe are fine-tuned to very specific values which enable not only the possibility of life, but of astronomical structures, diverse elements, chemical bonds, and even matter itself. For Hoyle, the very existence of carbon was proof of intelligent design in physics. Subsequently, powerful arguments have emerged regarding intelligent design in biology. It must be stressed that these are disciplinary arguments not from faith but from empirical science. Not least among them is Watson and Crick’s discovery of the quaternary code embedded in DNA — comparable to but vastly exceeding in complexity the binary codes used in our own digital technologies. This, in plain terms, is language; and according to all of our knowledge and experience, there is only one possible source for language — intelligent mind.
And that’s as far as the scientific argument should or ever can take us. Where we imagine this mind to be located, let alone any inference we can make about its nature or intent, goes beyond material science and remains an individual philosophical challenge. Hoyle, for one, did not default to belief in anything resembling an anthropomorphic God. Instead he adopted a position consonant with ancient philosophy in both its Eastern and Western branches — that the universe itself is intelligent.
As the Stoic philosopher Chryssipus of Soli wrote, in his De Nature Deorum: “The universe itself is God.”
With any other element, Hoyle’s epiphany would perhaps not have had quite such an impact on the scientist. It was the fact that the miracle concerned carbon, whose unique properties made it (as far as we know) the only possible platform for the phenomenon of life itself, that forced a decisive paradigm-shift in his thinking. His worldview expanded, as it had to, to accommodate the impossible.
Hoyle’s carbon epiphany is outlined in his second paper on stellar nucleosynthesis, “On Nuclear Reactions Occurring in Very Hot Stars: the Synthesis of Elements from Carbon to Nickel”, which appeared in The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. 1: 121–146 (1954). Half a century later, Hoyle’s miraculous element would become the subject of an extraordinary campaign, as levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide were seen to be rising as a result of industrial processes and ignition-based technologies. A trace gas comprising only 0.04% of the atmosphere was held to be at dangerously high levels and threatening the climatic stability of the planet, despite the fact that climate has always been subject to change on both a cyclical and an evolutionary basis.
Carbon dioxide is one of the four elements of the life cycle, the other three being oxygen, water, and sunlight. Life cannot exist in the absence of any of these four elements. All life on earth depends ultimately on photosynthesis, by which atmospheric carbon is bound into living forms and oxygen released into the atmosphere.
Hoyle died in 2001, so he lived long enough to witness the beginnings of the climate controversy, particularly after the founding of the United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988. He didn’t get heavily involved in the debate, but I think we can assume without too much presumption that he would have been content to trust the intelligence of an evolved planetary system within an intelligent universe. He made occasional interventions in the infant science of climatology — for instance to dispute the way the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ was calculated — but for the most part the astrophysicist was focused on higher things; on origins: of the universe, of life, of religion.
For the past several million years, planet Earth has effectively been in a carbon drought. Plants grow best with atmospheric CO2 at above 1000 parts per million. During the last glaciation, levels fell as low as 180 ppm, perilously close to the lower limit of 150 ppm below which plants cannot survive. The recent rise to around 400 ppm gives us a very small cushion of safety, but if temperatures should happen to drop — during a solar minimum, for example — that danger persists, and the situation could change very rapidly.
As the planet has begun, tentatively, to recover from its CO2 drought, with humans playing a vital role, we see a global increase in vegetation, a greening especially of arid areas, as clearly shown by satellite imagery — studies done by CSIRO, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, reveal this trend, and their figures are confirmed by NASA. Increased availability of CO2 confers drought resistance in plants, because it enables plants to use water more efficiently, needing to employ fewer and smaller stomatic apertures to absorb the gas, and thus losing less water to evaporation in the process. And of course higher carbon dioxide massively boosts growth, which is why farmers pump the gas into greenhouses from special generators or engine exhausts. Levels of 800 to 1200 ppm lead to 40-60% increases in yield. In the open air, while fertilisers and water can be increased, atmospheric CO2 is always the limiting factor on growth. In recent years the ‘CO2 fertilisation effect’ has brought huge gains in agricultural yields worth hundred of billions of dollars in profit.
Global greening — CSIRO
And that, in a nutshell, is the greenhouse effect — the only important effect of higher atmospheric carbon. That statement will shock many who are in thrall to climate change propaganda, but it is what the historical record tells us, using climate reconstructions based on the only reliable proxy: ice-cores. Over the last 650,000 years, of which we have a detailed record of both temperatures and atmospheric composition, we can indeed observe some correlation between warm periods and higher carbon dioxide levels. But, in the record, temperature increases most often come first, preceding increases of atmospheric CO2. It’s easy to understand why. For one thing, warm conditions are good for life; when it is warmer, the tree of life grows fast and strong. Life proliferates across the surface of the planet, enhancing the carbon cycle. More significantly, the oceans emit CO2 as they warm. Cooling water absorbs, but warming waters exhale, the gas of life. So when the conditions exist for more life, the planet provides. But the oceans warm more slowly than landmass, so there’s is a time lag of about 800 hundred years between rising temperatures and rising CO2. It is important to note that the warming of the oceans can not be a consequence of the warming of the atmosphere, since the depths of the ocean can only be warmed by convection, not conduction. Ultimately, both the atmosphere and the oceans are warmed by the same source: solar irradiance. Currently, according to NASA, there is no warming of the deep ocean.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and helps the biosphere to retain heat. But it is by no means the most important one — water vapour composes around 70% of all greenhouse gases and constitutes about 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 plays a much smaller role, and its effect diminishes proportionately as more is added. Atmospheric temperature exhibits a logarithmic dependence on carbon dioxide levels — that is, if it takes an increase of (for example) 100 ppm to bring about a rise of one degree Celsius, it will take a further 200 ppm to raise temperatures by another degree; a further 400 ppm to add a another degree, a further 800 ppm to add the next, and so on. This system of diminishing returns means that there can be no ‘tipping point’ in terms of atmospheric carbon; thus no ‘runaway warming’ due to feedbacks is observed in the history of the earth, despite enormously higher levels of CO2 in the past.
Over the industrial period we have seen a net warming of less than one degree Celsius, which actually represents a remarkable degree of stability. We can not only survive in a carbon rich atmosphere but would thrive, along with all other species. There is no such thing as an excess; higher atmospheric carbon, in fact, is the key to ending world hunger. But it seems there are those among us who do not want to see that happen; who indeed would regard it as a catastrophe, undermining their power at the top of a hierarchical society dependent on artificial scarcity. In 1991, the Club of Rome, the elite think-tank behind the United Nations’ environmental policy, published a report entitled ‘The First Global Revolution’, which contains this astonishing passage:
“The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself — when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose.
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” (p 115)
Thus the globalist faction declared war on humanity and created a travesty of environmentalism as its weapon. Through selective governmental funding and led by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the globalists began promoting heavily manipulated science to spread fear of an impending catastrophe triggered by the extraction of energy from hydrocarbons, whether by burning wood, coal, oil or methane gas. Through international treaties, taxes, and cap-and-trade carbon exchanges, they hoped to inhibit and ultimately reverse the addition of life-giving CO2 to the atmosphere by the human gift of fire, while using their obsessive demonisation of carbon emissions to distract attention from the actual and rampant over-exploitation, pollution and destructive desecration of almost every habitat on Earth.
The aim, explicit in the UN’s Agenda 21 and 30 policy documents, is to shut off humanity’s access to hydrocarbons, the source of 98% of the world’s energy at current technological levels, and crucial to Third World development. Carbon, the element of life, is identified as a pollutant, specifically in its atmospheric form — which is what sustains all life on this planet through photosynthesis.
This whipped-up hysteria, spread by a politicised, bureaucratised travesty of science, is founded on a reversal of causation. The early ice-core surveys seemed to reveal some degree of correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide, attracting the interest of the oceanographer Dr Roger Revelle, who posed the question in 1957: might our industrial generation of atmospheric carbon dioxide become problematic over time? After more than three decades studying the question, Revelle concluded in an article (“What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap”, 1992, co-authored with Fred Singer and Chauncey Starr) that the hypothesis remained unproven, and advised that it should not form the basis for drastic action.
Revelle died in 1991, the same year as the Club of Rome’s declaration. The published article appeared, after peer review, the following year. The dismissive response of one of the professor’s former students, a certain Albert Arnold Gore, was to claim that Revelle had gone senile before his death. And this nasty, personal tone still saturates the debate about anthropogenic climate change — and especially the debate about whether debate should even be allowed — three whole decades later.
In any case the political die was already cast; the Club of Rome’s declaration of war on humanity had already been issued. The IPCC, instituted in 1988 on a brief to look only at human causes of climate change, ignored such calls for caution and promoted the idea of a climate emergency too urgent to allow time for any further debate: the so-called precautionary principle. It adopted fraudulent studies such as Dr Michael Mann’s ‘hockey-stick’ reconstruction of climate history as doctrine, and published its Summaries for Policymakers before its scientists had finished their reports, cherry-picking and even altering its own scientists’ conclusions. Serving scientists had to support the consensus or shut up; there were no minority reports. When participants resigned in protest at the procedures and constitution of their committees, their names were retained as authors until legal action was taken. One of the best accounts of the corrupt behaviour of the IPCC bureaucracy is provided by Christopher Booker in his 2009 book, The Real Global Warming Disaster.
As further ice-core surveys provided more data points, it became clear that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels follow, rather than precede, rises and falls in temperature. The record frequently shows a complete decoupling of any relationship between carbon dioxide levels and temperature. Indeed, the planet has experienced six ice-ages when CO2 was at high levels. The idea that atmospheric carbon dioxide drives climate is a knowing inversion of the facts; it is war propaganda.
And it leads to tortured contradiction: if carbon dioxide, the root of all life, is a pollutant, then life itself is pollution.
That seems to me a mockery; a Satanic inversion.
Those who oppose the deception are castigated as ‘climate deniers’, amid periodic calls
for their arrest and punishment. One of the most fanatical priests in this new inquisition is Dr Peter Carter, a medical doctor by training, and latterly an expert reviewer for the IPCC. Applauding the Pope’s 2015 encyclical letter calling climate change ‘a sin against God’, he condemns scientific dissent on climate change as ‘evil’, an ‘unprecedented crime’ of ‘extreme immorality’, and urges criminal prosecution of the heretics. And what punishment could possibly be enough, since climate deniers according to him will end up killing literally everyone. In Carter’s inverted worldview, we have ‘no future’ if we don’t reduce our CO2 emissions to near zero. He believes it may already be too late, and fears we may already be committed to an ‘uninhabitable planet’. I haven’t read the book, so I can’t tell you by what statistical methodology he arrives at a conclusion so brazenly contradicted by the facts.
Indeed, in his view, reducing emissions is not enough: we must actively remove existing CO2 from the atmosphere. The gas of life must be ‘sequestered’ — that is, hidden away underground, where it can do no harm. When you understand that trees and plants themselves sequester carbon, this appears a somewhat bizarre idea. If you want to take carbon out of the atmosphere, surely you would just plant trees; and the higher carbon in the atmosphere will speed their growth. The carbon activists call this ‘biological sequestration’ — as if the very purpose of plant-life is to save us from CO2. But Earth needs its forests, just as much as it needs its seas. It needs great oceans of forest — oceans and forests are the twinned lungs of the planet, breathing oxygen into the atmosphere. Forests and food are what the carbon dioxide is for.
But biological sequestration is not good enough for Carter and the priesthood, because trees drop their leaves and die and rot, and their wood is burnt for fuel and in forest fires, and so the carbon is released back into the cycle. The answer, then, is to use the trees as biological sequestrates to pull the carbon from the atmosphere — let them do something useful for once –- and then we cut them down and burn them in ovens, taking care to capture the CO2which we then bury in great underground caverns — so-called ‘geological sequestration’.
Is this insanity, or something else?
In terms of geological time spans, atmospheric carbon is almost as low as it has ever been. When plants evolved, it was at least ten times higher — all that carbon waiting to be bonded into the great oceanic forests. With the planet only now beginning to emerge from its CO2 famine, and temperatures plateauing out and beginning to fall, the geological sequestration of carbon is so absurd a plan that it can only be insanity — or Satanity, one or the other — a sick, Satanic joke.
Next, though I can hardly believe I’m writing it, the priests of the church of Satanic inversion — most recently one William Henry Gates III — tell us that to propitiate the gods of climate we must dim the sun itself. How? With artificial clouds, a screen of cirrus nucleated by particles ‘injected’ into the stratosphere. Solar Radiation Management, they call it, euphemistically. Not sunlight, but solar radiation; not dimming, but ‘management’.
They’ve been talking about it for a long time: from Edward Teller in the 1950s to David Keith of Harvard in the 2010s. But the amazing thing is that while they were talking, the sun-screen has gone up all by itself. We don’t have to build it, it’s already there! An artificial albedo of reflective particles has magically constructed itself in the sky, whitening the blue, and diminishing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface by 15 – 20% compared to fifty years ago.
Some of this atmospheric sunscreen comes from JP8 jet fuel, which was introduced across the board in both civil and military aviation during the 1990s. By 1997 the transition was complete — and interestingly, the first observations of ‘chemtrails’ date from 1997-98. So it was contrails after all. But since JP8 is a dirty fuel, the persistent contrails it generates are described perfectly accurately by the popular term. With this fuel, a contrail is a chemtrail.
JP8 contains a wide range of metallic additives, including aluminium, calcium, magnesium, sulphur, titanium, iron, tin, and potassium, and trace elements of barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, niobium, scandium, selenium and vanadium, in amounts magnified by hundred of thousands of commercial flights per day. These elements are added to fuel in nano-particulate form, making them extremely potent. The nano-particles nucleate cirrus clouds — exactly the artificial albedo proposed by scientists like David Keith.
With this fuel, a contrail is a chemtrail.
It is sometimes acknowledged in the media that aviation emissions are resulting in ‘accidental’ geo-engineering, but of course all these metals don’t end up in jet fuel by accident. Legislation could and obviously should be passed to end the additives. But consider this: if you wanted to disperse chemicals for the purpose of geo-engineering, what would you do? Obviously one would first look at using the vector of commercial aviation to achieve that aim.
JP8 creates the ambient metals pollution that ionises the troposphere for various military and communications applications including 3D over-the-horizon radar systems. This doesn’t mean that aerosol injection for weather modification is not being carried out through other vectors including unmarked planes, drones and military tankers following flight-paths which have nothing to do with commercial aviation. Then there are sounder-rockets with payloads of chemicals, and even balloon-tethered, kilometres-long ‘sky-hoses’. Ship-based operations using filthy ‘bunker fuels’ also play a role; the fallout of soot on ice and snow leads to reduced reflectivity and higher heat absorption, helping to create the illusion of ‘global warming’. Weather modification is a huge industry and rarely seems to be used for constructive purposes but rather as a form of covert warfare. It can also used as a form of psychological warfare to make self-fulfilling prophecies of predictions of climate chaos as per anthropogenic global warming theory. Weather weapons are used to manifest the otherwise unfounded predictions of the UNIPCC, precipitating ‘natural’ disasters such as floods and storms, reinforcing the CO2-driven climate-change narrative in the public mind.
The enemy, as the Club of Rome announced, is humanity itself; the war-aim, to bring the world under a unipolar global power structure. The UN’s Agenda 21 and 30 policy documents describe this centralised system which aspires to manage and control all aspects of human existence. The war on carbon — on sunlight, on photosynthesis — is a war for the full-spectrum dominance of humanity.
Forest coverage is greater now than it was 150 years ago. The industrial revolution was powered by coal; burning it released in concentrated form the embedded solar energy in plant-life. Without coal, Northern Europe would quickly have been denuded of trees to feed industrial processes. It was coal that saved the forests.
This is not to say that deforestation is not of intense concern. While deforestation is slowing or even reversing, in terms of total land area, most of the tree canopy loss is from primary forest — tropical rainforest and other biologically diverse biomes.
But fossil fuels are anathema to the ‘environmentalists’, and coal-fired electricity generation is being abandoned and suppressed across the Western world. Coal and oil are considered worse than wood, since burning them releases carbon which has been geologically sequestered for millions of years. Thus we arrive at the absurdity of a 3,900 megawatt power plant in Northern England — Drax Power Station, near Leeds in Yorkshire — which has converted from coal to ‘biomass’. This euphemism masks the madness of feeding a modern power station with 70,000 tons of wood per day, and an estimated total of 7.5 million tons annually. To sustain its output, this single power station requires 1, 200, 000 hectares (12,000 km2) of forest to supply it on a continuous basis. Most of this is imported in processed wood pellets from North America, although some is domestically sourced from willow trees.
Drax Power Station, UK
Because of the unreliable nature of wind-power generation, wind farms need power plants to support their output — into which more and more ‘biomass’ will be fed as the turbines march across more and more of the landscape. In addition, since solar power and wind are such diffuse sources of energy, requiring the dedication of large areas of land, deforestation is a concomitant of their wholesale adoption. In Scotland, for instance, 13.9 million trees were felled in the year 2000-2019 to make space for wind-power installations, according to information supplied by Scottish Forestry — an area of 6,994 hectares (70 km², 17,283 acres).
Is this environmentalism, or a war on trees?
Image of wind farm in Clashindarroch Forest (credit: Wildcat Haven)
The campaign has been fought so far in suits and ties, but if you want to see grim front-line footage from the war on trees, take a look at images of the great wildfires, the so-called ‘mega-fires’, that have devastated forests in California, Russia, Sweden, Brazil, Angola, Congo, Portugal, Greece, Australia — it’s a global phenomenon, and while brushfire is a natural phase of healthy forests, the extent and intensity of these arboreal holocausts over the past decade suggests that something has changed, with the loss of more than a million acres of forest per year. As I write, 5 million hectares in Australia are being consumed by firestorms unprecedented in world history, a total area of forest almost equivalent in area to the countries of Belgium and Luxembourg combined, producing a smoke plume as wide as the continent of Europe.
The climate priests and their obedient media tell us that ‘global warming’ is to blame for the fires. But it is not carbon dioxide which desiccates forests and accelerates these firestorms; instead we should look to the actual desiccant and incendiary properties of aluminium, which now saturates every system on our planet, the water table, the air column, the rain and the snow, the soil and the oceans, and the bodies of every living creature. Aluminium oxide and iron are the ingredients of thermite — the incendiary used to cut steel at 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit — and both are present, in nano-form, in JP8 aviation fuel, as are barium and magnesium, both highly inflammable. Is it any wonder then that vegetation saturated with these metals burns with such intensity? Or that seven out of ten of the most destructive fires in Californian history have happened in the last five years?
California was afflicted by one of the most persistent droughts in its history from 2011-2019. Drought, of course, can be engineered through weather modification. Drought and flood were the earliest weapons in the weather warfare arsenal, as seen for example in Operation Popeye during the Viet Nam war. During the California droughts there was massive aerosol activity along the West coast on the United States. Was rainfall being deliberately blocked? And why do we not see any effort to use weather modification to bring rain to drought-afflicted areas before the fires break out, or to dampen the flames once they erupt? There is strategy in these so-called ‘natural’ disasters.
An estimated half a billion (500 million) animals have died in the Australian fires currently raging.
The war on trees also has human casualties. In Northern California two towns in the Sierra Nevada foothills, Paradise and Concow, were completely destroyed and several others severely damaged in the so-called Camp Fire (named after its origin on Camp Creek Road) which consumed 60,000 hectares of forest and 18,000 buildings in 2018. The
official death toll is 85, making it the deadliest in Californian history; there is confusion as to the number of people still unaccounted for. Some were incinerated in their cars on clogged evacuation routes. In the aftermath of the fires, many will not be able to return. 25 million acres of California — home to 25% of the Californian population — have been designated ‘very high’ to ‘extreme’ fire threat areas, which makes it almost impossible to obtain insurance.
In Australia the current drought is exacerbated by flood plain water-harvesting and the construction of dams for private mega-projects; there are bone-dry river beds and creeks across the country which are normally fed by aquifers, not run-off. Meanwhile 43,000 fracking wells across the continent consume up to 16 million gallons of water per well. The government resists calls for more fire-fighters at the same time as criminally selling off water resources to private companies. There is talk of bringing in defence forces to evacuate dangerous areas, including 90 drought-hit towns. Again, high insurance premiums will keep people out, and if not, the soldiers will.
All of this leads to the suspicion that these fires are being used for land-clearance in line with the UN’s rewilding schemes, with the ultimate aim of concentrating human populations in ‘smart’ cities. In both California and South-east Australia the infernos have followed the course of proposed new bullet-train systems. From Paradise we see baffling images of suburbs where all the houses have been consumed while surrounding trees stand unaffected. Many observers are certain that directed energy weapons (DEWs) have been involved in igniting the blazes, which would explain how trees can burn from the inside out and how houses can be consumed by ‘forest fires’ which leave the trees untouched. Earth-watchers have observed explosions at the inception-points of fires, from real-time satellite images. The grim realisation is dawning that these wildfires are not just being facilitated and precipitated by government inaction and incompetence; they are being deliberately prepared, triggered, and intensified, using an extensive arsenal of technologies.
Consider this poignant image of the war on trees: in South-East Australia, as a huge, fast-moving wildfire approaches the city of Sydney, council workers come in behind it with chain-saws and take down any surviving trees.
Why? Because they’re a ‘fire hazard’.
A lone tree in a blackened, devastated landscape where nothing stirs — a fire hazard!
Do I hear mocking laughter?
These workers should be employed to create fire breaks ahead of the flames, not pick through the ruins finishing off survivors.
Are you getting it yet, the epiphany?
There is no intergovernmental war on pollution, only a war of pollution. The carbon-driven ‘climate emergency’ serves as a cover-story, constructed well in advance, for climate chaos and environmental degradation engendered by out-of-control weather modification, weather warfare, and geo-engineering. The poisoning of air, soil and water constitutes the most urgent emergency we face, presenting an existential threat to the biosphere. Among the most serious consequences of stratospheric aerosol injection is the shredding of the ozone layer, allowing deeper penetration of ultra violet B and C radiation which is killing the plankton in the seas, estimated at a 50% reduction already on normal levels. The assault is on the very roots of the tree of life, and unless it ceases the only result can be biospheric collapse. The evidence suggests, and there is no doubt in my mind that, counterintuitive as it might seem, that is the aim.
The climate emergency is camouflage for a covert war on humanity, declared in 1991. Anthropogenic global warming or ‘climate change’ is a mask for the chaos of weather modification and geo-engineering. Carbon is merely the phantom enemy to enable the mobilisation of humanity against itself.
The enemies of carbon portray planet Earth as fragile and sick, humanity as its disease. But this planet, like the carbon atom at the heart of the web of life, is a system imbued with intelligence, and we are part of it. The planet doesn’t need us entombing the gas of life in the ground or erecting screens of toxic particulates in the sky. This is madness, or mockery — a Satanic joke. What we need to do is plant trees and protect primary forest; clean up the oceans and rivers; abandon oil-based plastics and use hemp; unleash Third World development; end poverty and hunger and watch the population stabilise.
Respect the design. Respect habitat, and let all species thrive.
And in time, by all means, move from fossil fuels to more elegant solutions for accessing the energy we need. Liberate the Tesla technology, sequestered in covert military and corporate laboratories for a hundred years. But, if we do, we must remember to keep generating the CO2 that sustains not just the forests but all life. And make the transition humanely, intelligently, on this intelligent planet.
But first, we must fight this war against madness and mockery.
The war on carbon is not to save the environment. The war is against humanity, and to destroy humanity you must destroy its sustenance, and to do that you must attack the ecosystems that sustain it and embrace the risk of collapsing the biosphere itself. Your life-science and technology will enable you — you hope — to bring it all back, to your own design and specifications.
So enlist your enemy in its own destruction; have it worship your Satanic inversions.
The war on carbon is a war on life.
And there it is: the carbon epiphany.
Note: my epiphany was induced by listening to scientists like Dr Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Physics at MIT; Dr William Happer, physicist, Princeton professor, formerly Director of Energy Research at the US Department of Energy, chairman of the steering committee for the JASON advisory group, and Chairman of the Marshall Institute 2006-2015; Dr Ivar Giaever, physicist, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics 1973, Professor Emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York, director of the company Applied Biophysics; Dr Ian Plimar, geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne; Dr Patrick Moore, founder member and former president of the Greenpeace Foundation; Dr Ian Clarke, paleo-climatologist, professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at Ottawa University; Dr John Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award, for his work developing global temperature data sets from satellites; Dr Nir Shaviv, Professor of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Dr Henrik Svensmark, Professor of Physics in the Division of Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Institute; Dr Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus at the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study; Dr Timothy Ball, professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1971 until his retirement in 1996; Dr Robert Carter, palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist, professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia from 1981 to 1998; and others.